Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. v. P3 International Corp.

United States District Court, S.D. New York

January 12, 2018

Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd., Plaintiff,
v.
P3 International Corp., Defendant.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER

          ALISON J. NATHAN, DISTRICT JUDGE.

         Plaintiff Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. brings various claims for patent infringement against Defendant P3 International Corporation. On September 22, 2017, the Court denied Defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings and for an award of attorney's fees. Dkt. No. 116 [hereafter, "September 22 Order"]. Now before the Court is Defendant's motion for reconsideration of the September 22 Order. Dkt. Nos. 123-24.

         For the reasons set forth below, Defendant's motion is denied.

         I. Background

         The Court assumes familiarity with the matter, the factual background of which is more fully described in the Court's September 22 Order. See Dkt. No. 116.

         On November 16, 2016, Defendant P3 International Corporation filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings with respect to two of the seven patents at issue in the amended complaint. Dkt. No. 19. In its motion, Defendant relied on matters outside of the pleadings with respect to each patent at issue. As a result, the Court faced a choice between excluding the materials or converting the motion into one for summary judgment per Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(d).

         In addressing Defendant's motion on the '207 Patent, the Court acknowledged that it could have elected to convert the motion but declined to do so, citing two main reasons. First, the Court found that although Plaintiff did acknowledge the possibility of conversion in its opposition brief, the Court could not be sure that each party had a "full and fair opportunity" to present its arguments on summary judgment. Dkt. No. 116 at 6-7 (quoting First Fin. Ins. Co. v. Allstate Interior Demolition Corp., 193 F.3d 109, 115-16 (2d Cir. 1999)). Second, the Court noted that at the time the motion was filed, Plaintiff had not yet had any opportunity for discovery and found that discovery would be relevant to Plaintiffs defense against summary judgment. Id. at 7. Given this, the Court concluded that Plaintiff should be allowed to seek discovery with respect to the purported prior art before the Court entertains a motion for summary judgment. Id.

         With respect to Defendant's motion on the '626 Patent, the Court rejected Defendant's arguments on both grounds asserted. The Court first found that Plaintiff had alleged sufficient detail so as to give Defendant fair notice of its claims of infringement, denying Defendant's argument that Plaintiff had failed to adequately state a claim. Id. at 8. Second, as with Defendant's motion on the '207 Patent, the Court found that Defendant's argument that 35 U.S.C. § 287(b)(2) precluded any chance that Plaintiff would receive a remedy for any infringement of the '626 Patent by importation relied upon evidence outside of the pleadings. Id. at 9. The Court again exercised its discretion in declining to convert the motion into one for summary judgment, finding that Plaintiff should have the opportunity for discovery into Defendant's inventory or importation history. Id.

         In its rulings then, the Court did not address the merits of Defendant's contentions, but merely determined it premature to consider the extraneous evidence and convert the motions into those for summary judgment. Approximately one month after the Court's September 22 Order was issued, Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn, who has ably overseen the parties' many discovery disputes, set a schedule for the close of discovery and for summary judgment practice. Dkt. No. 127. Fact discovery closed on November 3, 2017, and expert discovery closed on December 29, 2017. Id. Summary judgment motions from each side are due in the first months of 2018. Id.

         Despite this established schedule, which Defendant knew Judge Netburn was about to set at the time it filed the present motion, see Dkt. No. 122, Defendant moves the Court for reconsideration of its September 22 Order.

         II. Discussion

         A. Standard of Review

         Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) and Local Civil Rule 6.3 govern motions for reconsideration, and are intended to "ensure the finality of decisions and to prevent the practice of a losing party examining a decision and then plugging the gaps of a lost motion with additional matters." Medisim Ltd. v. BestMed LLC, No. 10-CV-2463 (SAS), 2012 WL 1450420, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 23, 2012) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). The standard for granting a motion for reconsideration "is strict, " Analytical Surveys, Inc. v. Tonga Partners, L.P., 684 F.3d 36, 52 (2d Cir. 2012), because "reconsideration of a previous order is an extraordinary remedy to be employed sparingly in the interests of finality and conservation of scarce judicial resources." In re Health Mgmt. Sys., Inc. Sees. Litig., 113 F.Supp.2d 613, 614 (S.D.N.Y. 2000) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). For this reason, "[a] motion for reconsideration may not be used to advance new facts, issues or arguments not previously presented to the Court, nor may it be used as a vehicle for relitigating issues already decided by the Court." R.F.M.A.S., Inc. v. Mimi So, 640 F.Supp.2d 506, 509 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) (quoting Davidson v. Scully, 172 F.Supp.2d 458, 461 (S.D.N.Y. 2001)). Instead, "[a] motion for reconsideration should be granted only when the defendant identifies an intervening change of controlling law, the availability of new evidence, or the need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice." Kolel Beth Yechiel Mechil of Tartikov, Inc. v. YLL Irrevocable Trust, 729 F.3d 99, 104 (2d Cir. 2013) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); see also Shrader v. CSX Transp., Inc., 70 F.3d 255, 257 (2d Cir. 1995).

         B. Defendant's Motion Simply Relitigates Decided Issues and Presents ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.